|
|
#1
02-16-2007, 05:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only sites
I only ask because online poker only sites are not actually in the business of staking or risking anything of value because they charge rake. It doesn’t even matter what the outcome of the wager is to them (whereas a sportsbook does care about the outcome of what you bet on), since they are getting a rake either way.
|
|
#2
02-16-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only sites
[ QUOTE ]
I only ask because online poker only sites are not actually in the business of staking or risking anything of value because they charge rake. It doesn’t even matter what the outcome of the wager is to them (whereas a sportsbook does care about the outcome of what you bet on), since they are getting a rake either way. [/ QUOTE ] How do you think sports books make money? Not by placing bets but by setting a line that guarantees them a profit. What's the difference? Sports books don't care who wins, either. They've taken action from both sides and will turn a profit either way.
|
|
#3
02-16-2007, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
jackaaron's got a point, but I cant agree for certain till I check the specific wording of the law. This was not a well written law, you know, and this technicality could easily be there.
And bookies are differrent, they accept bets. And even though they HOPE to have enough on both sides to make a profit, they pay you when you win, you pay them when you lose.
|
|
#4
02-16-2007, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
TruePoker CEO brought this point up some time ago. He felt that a poker site like his and every other one was not accepting any bets or wagers but merely offering a system for the players to bet against each other.
|
|
#6
02-17-2007, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker CEO brought this point up some time ago. He felt that a poker site like his and every other one was not accepting any bets or wagers but merely offering a system for the players to bet against each other. [/ QUOTE ] Well, we can split these hairs all we want to and it's not going to make a bit of difference until somebody gets in front of a court with these arguments. Hopefully, the DOJ won't have the whole industry in a pile of rubble by the time we get there.
|
|
#7
02-17-2007, 11:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
I thought the Wire Act was aimed at sports betting, and the new law made funding for such betting illegal.
I would be curious to see what would happen if: A. A skin of Bodog's card room was created, where you COULD NOT bet in the sportsbook - poker only account. B. A new e-wallet was created which would fund Stars/FT/Bodog skin plus any other card rooms left that take US players but are poker only. Would the DOJ go after this e-wallet and what would be the grounds? Would this make for a good court case, to establish online poker as legal?
|
|
#8
02-18-2007, 02:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker CEO brought this point up some time ago. He felt that a poker site like his and every other one was not accepting any bets or wagers but merely offering a system for the players to bet against each other. [/ QUOTE ] They're assisting in the transfer of money for people who are making illegal bets and wagers (on hands of poker, as defined by certain state laws). This should make them just as culpable as neteller. No doubt this is the reason why TruePoker CEO sent out emails the day the law was signed, saying that players from certain states could no longer play on TruePoker. He talked the talk but clearly didn't believe his own argument.
|
|
#9
02-19-2007, 11:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
[ QUOTE ]
TruePoker CEO brought this point up some time ago. He felt that a poker site like his and every other one was not accepting any bets or wagers but merely offering a system for the players to bet against each other. [/ QUOTE ] Except that the law provides that facilitating on-line wagers is illegal too...which is what a poker site does.
|
|
#10
02-19-2007, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why doesn’t the language of the UIGEA already exclude poker only s
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] TruePoker CEO brought this point up some time ago. He felt that a poker site like his and every other one was not accepting any bets or wagers but merely offering a system for the players to bet against each other. [/ QUOTE ] Except that the law provides that facilitating on-line wagers is illegal too...which is what a poker site does. [/ QUOTE ] Not exactly. The law provides that facilitating funding of "illegal online gambling" is illegal. We know that sports betting is "illegal online gambling," but with the exception of a handful of states with specific laws, "illegal online gambling" has never been defined to include poker or casino table games. My argument earlier is that I really see no difference between what a poker room does and a sports book does though the Supreme Court has indeed made that distinction.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
